Cointegration of Public Sector Expenditure Patterns and Growth of Nigeria.pdf

7/27/2019 Cointegration of Public Sector Expenditure Patterns and Growth of Nigeria.pdf

1/16

Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org

ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)

Vol.3, No.9, 2013

174

Cointegration of Public Sector Expenditure Patterns and Growth

of Nigeria

Appah, Ebimobowei, Ateboh-Briggs, Patricia BIsaac Jasper Boro College of Education, Sagbama, Bayelsa State, Nigeria

Abstract

This study investigates the cointegration patterns of public expenditure and growth in Nigeria for the period1961-2010. To achieve the objective of the study, data was collected from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)Statistical Bulletin. The data collected from the secondary sources were analysed using relevant econometricmodels such as Augmented Dickey-Fuller, Diagnostic Tests, Johansen Co-integration and Vector ErrorCorrection models. The results from the econometric analysis reveals that pattern of public expenditure ofadministration, social and community services, economic services, and transfers affects the economic growth of

Nigeria. On the basis of the econometric result, the paper concluded that public expenditure is a very importantinstrument of fiscal policy that contributes to economic growth of any country. On the basis of the conclusionuseful recommendations were provided that will improve the pattern and structure of public sector expenditure

and management in Nigeria.Keywords: Public expenditure, Growth, Cointegration, Vector error correction, ADF, Nigeria

Introduction

There is this posturing among many academics and policy makers that public expenditure should aim at povertyreduction and improved economic development. Therefore any economic development effort worth its nameshould be directed towards the attainment of a sustainable increase in standard of living, accompanied byincrease per capital income, better education and good health facilities, infrastructure, not forgettingenvironmental protection and security (Cookey, 2010; Ezerim, Muoghalu, Elike and Amuze, 2010; John, Appahand Buseni, 2011). It must have been in recognition of this noble role of public expenditure that Sabatini (2006)observed that the interaction between the organization of a society and its economic performance was onceconsidered perhaps the fundamental question of political economy. According to Asiedu (2005), both theUnited Nations and World Bank targeted poverty reduction as the major Millennium Development Goal (MDG)

that should be attained by 2015. The New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD) is more emphatic inits own declaration needs to augment an annual resource gap to the tune of US $ 64 billion which representsabout 12% of the regions GDP.The contentious issue in contemporary economy debate however is whether public expenditure impact oneconomic development. Secondly, once there is this affirmation, there is therefore, the need to ascertain both thedirection and extent of its influence on economic development. The linkage between public expenditure andeconomic growth has attracted serious interest on the part of researchers both in the theoretical and empiricallevel. This interest is as a result of the role of public expenditure on infrastructure such as roads, ports,communication systems, public research spending, provision of basic educational and health services on theeconomic potential of any country (Irmen and Kuehnel, 2008; Nuruden and Usman, 2010). According to Maku(2009), the general view is that public expenditure either recurrent or capital on social or economic infrastructurecan be growth-enhancing although the financing of such expenditure to provide essential infrastructuralfacilities-including transport, electricity, telecommunications, water and sanitation, waste disposal, education andhealth can be growth-retarding. Also Afonso and Furceri (2007), Minea (2008) suggest that public spending oninfrastructural facilities is widely seen as having an important role in affecting economic growth. There are twoopposing views on this issue. The Keynesian approach argues that public spending is an important policy tool to

be used to ensure a reasonable level of economic activities; correct short term cyclical fluctuations in aggregateexpenditure; and secure an increase in productive investment, thus providing a socially optimal direction forgrowth and development (Jhingan, 2004). The opposite view is that excessive government intervention ineconomic life affects growth performance in a negative way for two reasons: first, because operations are oftenconducted inefficiently, hence they reduce the overall productivity of the economic system; second becauseexcessive government spending distorts economic incentives and results in sub-optimal economic decisions(Vaish, 2002). Therefore, empirical evidence on the subject is mixed. Studies like that of Abdullah (2000), Al-Yousif (2000), Ranjan and Sharman (2008) and Coorey (2009) conclude that public expenditure on economicgrowth is positive. On the other hand, studies like the ones by Barro (1991) and Folster and Henrekon (2001)suggested that public expenditure on economic growth is negative. The above objectives seem to have been metin many different ways, depending, of course, on which side of the coin one is viewing it.The general view is that public expenditure, notably on physical infrastructure, or human capital, can be growth-


2/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

175

enhancing, although the financing of such expenditure can be growth-retarding, owing mainly to the disincentiveeffect of taxation. This view has been supported by Kweka and Morrisey (2000) when they amplified that publicexpenditure can influence economic growth whether directly or indirectly through government activities thatincrease the total output through its interaction with the private sector. Accordingly, Lin (1994) has succinctly

asserted that the positive effect of public expenditure can readily be felt when government spends to providepublic goods and infrastructure, social services and targeted interventions. In Barids (1990) view, suchgovernment spending on investment and productive activities should add positively to economic growth whereasgovernment consumption spending is anticipated to be growth-retarding. The major problem with this line ofreasoning stems from the seeming difficulty associated with the empirical determination of which particular itemof expenditure should be labeled as investment or consumption, this line of thinking is influenced from onecountry/or region to another, the analytical tools in use, as well as categorization of public expenditure.The relationship between government spending and development should be of particular importance to thedeveloping countries. Most of the developing countries are associated with high level of public expenditure overtime which could be associated with rising fiscal deficit, indicating that these countries lack the ability togenerate sufficient revenue that is necessary to support higher levels of expenditure (Rajkumar, 2002).Expenditures are categorized as productive if they are included as arguments in private production functions andunproductive if isolated from such. This categorization would imply that productive expenditures have a direct

effect on the rate of economic growth, while unproductive expenditures would either have an indirect effect ornone at all (Shioji, 2001).The issue of which expenditure items qualify as productive or unproductive is highly debatable and hence may

be difficult to define a priori. The pertinent question at this junction is, how to sensitively define and applypublic expenditure in the Nigeria context. This study will investigate the Nigerian experience as it determines theimpact of public expenditure on the economic development of the country. The attainment of sustainableeconomic development conveys to the citizens of a particular country the privilege to enjoy an improvedstandard of living, high level of literacy and employment, improved health care and infrastructure, includingadequate protection of life and property within the country (Ogbonna, 2011). It is not debatable that all theseinvolve a whole lot of processes, just as no appreciable amount of economic growth can be achieved withoutcommensurate conscious, concerted efforts on the part of individuals, government and its agencies, the privatesector, and the citizenry (Cookey, 2010; Ezerim, Muoghalu, Elike and Amuzie, 2010)..While societies prefer to pursue such initiatives through private oriented programmes, some other may go for

government efforts, while yet some others are caught in between the two. Some societies believe thatgovernment programmes provide valuable public goods and services such as education and social amenities. Onthe other hand, some societies are of the view that higher spending on revenue expenditure by the governmentundermines economic growth as efficiency might not be the watch word. There should be a good balance

between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in order to facilitate economic development. Kweka andMorrissey (2000) have summarized these divergent views that while numerous studies have been conducted, noconsistent evidence exists for a significant relationship between public spending and growth, in a positive ornegative direction. The consensus between Kweka and Morrissey (2000) is that the actual relationship between

public spending and development is far from being understood and therefore calls for more empirical research.Added to this, there seems to be the short-coming arising from the adoption of cross-sectional approach, whilecountry specific case studies appear to be rare.Maku (2009) stressed that the structure of public expenditure will determine the pattern and form of growth inoutput of the economy. According to Anyanwu(1997), public expenditure structure addresses the question of

how the expenditure is or should be patterned. The structure of public expenditure is usually categorized intorecurrent and capital expenditure. The recurrent expenditure is composed of administration (generaladministration, defense, internal security); economic services (agriculture, construction, transport andcommunications and others); social and community services (education, health, and others); and transfers. In thesame vein capital expenditure includes administration, economic services, social and community services andtransfers (Musgrave and Musgrave, 2006; Bhartia, 2004; Anyanwu, 1997; Maku, 2009). Bhartia (2004) saysthese expenditures can be used to provide necessary economic infrastructure for the development of selectedeconomic activities and can be used to give subsidies for increasing their profitability. Public expenditure has anactive role to play in reducing regional disparities, developing social overheads, creation of infrastructure ofeconomic growth in the form of transport and communication facilities, education and training, growth of capitalgoods, industries, basic and key industries, research and development and so on. This view was supported byAkpan (2005), Todaro (2006), Appah (2010) when they argued that public expenditure on infrastructureinvestment and productive activities ought to contribute positively to development.

On this premise therefore, the present study focuses on Nigeria, being structurally different from any othercountry (Asiedu 2005). Hence, there is need to address such pertinent questions as: what is the nature of


3/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

176

relationship between public expenditure and the economy of Nigeria? Which constituent public expenditureheads affect economic development in Nigeria? There is the problem of huge sum of money being pumped intothe economy without commensurate development. One would have expected such huge sums of money injectedyearly into the system to contribute positively to the growth of the economy. Unfortunately, what one sees is a

dwindling and near total lack of economic development in Nigeria, such that both unemployment and inflationfigures continue to soar, with poor healthcare and infrastructural decay, etc being the order of the day.Consequently, this study is geared towards investigating the impact of public expenditure patterns on theeconomic development of Nigeria.This paper is thus organized into five interconnected sections. Section one, is the introduction as above. Sectiontwo reviews theoretical and empirical literatures on the subject matter of the study; section three discusses themethodological issues of the paper; section four presents and discusses the results obtained from the datagenerated for the study; while section five gives the conclusion and recommendation.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND EMPIRICAL LITERATURE

The long run relationship between public expenditure and economic growth has attracted attention in publicfinance research. In particular, the ability of public expenditure to influence economic growth is questioned intwo levels. First, the nature of the causality pattern is disputed: a number studies adopt the Wagners law

approach which states that public expenditure causes economic growth mainly through an increase in demand forpublic services (Aregbeyen, 2006; Bhartia, 2004; Maku, 2009). Within this framework, public expenditure istreated as a behavioral variable. On the other hand, a number of macroeconomic models adopt the Keynesianapproach to which public expenditure is an important tool able to influence the level of economic growth. Morerecently, the role of public expenditure as an output-promoting control variable has been highlighted in theframework of the endogenous growth literature. Endogenous growth models postulates that the economysoutput is conditioned not only on the level of physical capital and labour stock but also on additional productionfactors which may enter the production function with constant returns to scale alone (Afonso and Furceri, 2007).Empirical evidence tends to reject the prediction of neoclassical models that fiscal policy cannot affect growth inthe long run. However, the results are far from conclusive. In particular, with regard to the effects of publicexpenditure on growth, several studies analyse the growth effects of either total government expenditure or itscomponents. For example, Gupta, Verhoeven and Tiongson (2002), Haque and Kim (2003), Fan and Rao (2003),Ramirez and Nazmi (2003). The results of these studies are often contradictory depending on the assumptions

made, methodology used, the country or set of countries studied, and so on. On the other hand, publicexpenditure can displace private investment, and on the public hand public expenditure can encourage privateinvestment and therefore economic growth. Table one below shows various empirical studies on the relationship

between public expenditure and economic growth.

Table 1: Empirical Studies on Public Expenditure

Author Sample and Method Main Result

Canning and Pedroni (2004) A panel of countries over theperiod 1950-1992 using simplepanel based tests

*The results show clear evidencethat in the vast majority of casesinfrastructure does induce long rungrowth effects.*The results demonstrate thattelephone, electricity, generatingcapacity and paved roads are

provided at close to the growthmaximizing level of average.

Bose, Haque and Osborne (2007) A panel of 30 developing countriesover the 1970-1990 using OLSregression

*The share of government capitalexpenditure in GDP is positivelysignificantly correlated witheconomic growth, while the growtheffect of current expenditure isinsignificant.*Government investment ineducation and total expenditure ineducation are the only outlays thatremain significantly associated withgrowth throughtout the analysis.

Bagdigen and Cetintas (2004) Turkish public expenditure overthe period 1965-2000 using co-

The result shows no causality inboth directions; neither Wagners


4/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

177

integration and the Grangercausality test.

law nor Keynesian hypothesis isvalid for the Turkish case.

Ando (2009)A panel data over the period 1995-2003 using OLS economic growth

equation based on Feder model.

The result shows that defenseexpenditure has a positive impact

on economic growth.Maku (2009) A time series data for 1977-2006

using classical least square,regression model and DurbinWatson test.

The result shows that private andpublic investments haveinsignificant effect on economicgrowth.

Leeuwen and Foldvari (2007) A sample of Japan, Indonesia andIndia for the period 1890-2000using Johansen cointegration test

The result shows that in India andIndonesia the level of humancapital is cointegrated with thelevel of aggregate income duringthe whole 20th century. In Japan,the Lucasian approach was verifiedonly for the first half of the century,while after 1950 there is a

cointegration between growth rateof aggregate income and the levelof human capital.

Yuk (2005) A time series analysis of theUnited Kingdom for the period1830-1993 using a trivariate VARmodel, Multiple regression andDickey-Fuller tests.

The result supports the export-ledgrowth and although the support forWagners law is sensitive to thechoice of the sample period, thereis evidence that GDP growthGranger-causes the share ofgovernment spending in GDPindirectly through export share ofGDP during the period.

Arpaia and Turrini (2008) A sample of EU-15 countries over

the period 1970-2003 using panelunit root tests and cointegrationanalysis.

The paper shows that the estimation

method matters substantially for themeasurement of the relation

between government expenditureand potential output.

Yasin A panel data from 26 sub-saharanAfrican countries for the period1987-97 using fixed effects andrandom effects estimationtechnique.

The results from both estimationtechniques indicate thatgovernment spending on capitalformation trade-openness, and the

private investment spending allhave positive and significant effecton economic growth.

Colombier (2009) A time series data set usingordinary least square regression forthe period 1965-2005 inSwitzerland.

The result provide strong evidencethat government outlays fortransport infrastructure, justice andgeneral government are vital foroutput growth. Whereas theevidence for a growth effect ofeducation is weak and therefore areversed causation effect could beascertained. The evidenceconcerning the growth effect ofsocial justice and health care arenot clear cut.

Source: Adopted from various authors

Nigerian Economy The Nigerian economy has the potentialities of becoming one of the twenty leading

economies of the world before the year 2020 if her abundant crude oil wealth, human and natural resourceswould be properly managed, corruption mitigated, the key national institutions such as power, energy, road,transportation, political, financial, socio-economic, legal, investment environment systems etc developed.


5/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

178

Accountability of petroleum income, its profitable investment and the diversification of the economy are verycrucial for economic development. Unfortunately, according to Odularu (2008) crude oil discovery has hadcertain impacts on the Nigerian economy both positively and negatively. On the negative side, it has causedenvironmental degradation, which leads to deprivation of means of livelihood and other economic and social

factors.Nwezeaku (2010), Thomas (2008) et al posit that the economy has been bedeviled by perennialunderdevelopment, poverty, increasing debt burden due to multiple problems such as poor energy supply and

power outages , systematic collapsing of industries and infrastructures, lack of proper turn around maintenancein the oil and gas industries, high rate of corruption, militant insurgencies, criminal activities, observable neglect,unprecedented restiveness, violence, conflict, environmental degradation, horrible and hostile investmentenvironment, incessant bombing in public places, inconsistency and conflicting financial reporting from variousgovernment agencies on petroleum income. The economy is really faced with poor human developmental andeconomic indices as evidenced by high rate of perennial and persistent inflation, low per capita income, poorincome distribution, GDP and sustained impoverishment. Mismanagement of abundant natural, human andmaterial resources, insatiable creed and loss for excessive wealth, corrupt practices at all levels and political

banditry have been the bane of Nigerian economy.Collier et al (2003) and Yakub (2008) et al have linked abundant natural resources to slow economic growth,

civil conflict and socio-economic collapse. They further state that of all natural resources, oil has been found tohave the highest risk of civil conflict because of the large rents it offers. Therefore, Nigeria needs to be morecareful about the way it manages her oil revenue to avoid socio-economic collapse.BBC (2006) once said in one of its reports that Nigerian leaders stole $389 billion. The corrupt practicesmanifest themselves in inflated contracts prices that are hardly executed satisfactorily and most of them aredeliberately abandoned after receiving the money meant for the contracts. Some of the bad roads we have todayare as a result of abandoned contracts by successive administration. The Federal Account Allocation Committee(FAAC) has to recoup some N450 billion un-remitted oil proceeds which the Nigerian National PetroleumCorporation (NNPC) currently owes it (Nwachukwu,2011), just to state a few. Where there is properaccountability NNPC will always remit oil revenue to FAAC.For many reasons, Nigerias petroleum industry according to Eromosele (1997) is unique actually like no otherin the world. History, geography, economics and not the least politics, have combined to shape the size, definethe nature and determine the complexion of the countrys most strategic industry. Despite being the poorest oil-

rich country in the world, Nigeria will in the years ahead continue to contribute to world energy. Much willdepend on how it is able to husband its resources while balancing the demand imposed by the four identifiedinfluences.

Nigeria is an oil-rich country with poor citizens - a nation that has wealthy leaders but with highly impoverishedfollowers. What a paradox! Much as the statement may seem to be strange, that is the reality on ground, and theroot cause is the intractable canker worm called corruption that has eaten deep into the nations petroleumincome. Indeed, it is painful for Nigerians to be undergoing extreme poverty and sustained underdevelopment inthe midst of plenty of wealth in the oil-rich country in the world. This unfortunate and ugly trend must bereversed by systematic and well focused diversification strategy of the economy if Nigeria must make anyeconomic progress. Nigeria as a nation under distress, is therefore crying for a leader who would fight corruptionto a standstill. Ibaba (2005) posits that the Nigerian economy has been facing developmental crises such as highlevel of poverty, declining economic growth, collapse of local economies and social infrastructure. There have

been Corruption, financial indiscipline, lack of proper accountability of oil money, co-existence of abundant oil

wealth with extreme poverty; depleting foreign reserves have become the order of the day (Yakub 2008).Nigeria with all its oil wealth has performed poorly with GNP, per capita income today not higher than atindependence in 1960 (Bawa and Mohammed, 2007). That is, an average Nigerian was better off beforeindependence. Recently, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), which is governmentrepresentative in every matter relating to petroleum business in Nigeria, was reported to be insolvent as result ofcorruption. Crude oil royalties accruing to government are subject to the whims and caprices of governmentofficials and their oil companies counterparts. Therefore, the economy is not swinging or progressing the way itought to be. Nigeria is a major world supplier of crude oil, producing about 2mn barrels per day, and is aninfluential member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Sales of oil account for morethan 90 per cent of the nation's total foreign-exchange earnings, and therefore, the lion's share of the funds

Nigeria puts into its multi-faceted development programmes. Because of this substantial contribution, Nigeriacould well be described as an oil-based mono-cultural economy, and the country's fortunes often rise and fallwith the price of oil.


6/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

179

Table 2: Economic and social indicators for Nigeria

Key Economic Indicators Key Social Indicator

GDP per capital (constant 1995 prices) $ 254 Life expectancy at birth 47 years

Annual Average economic growth

1995-2001

2.8 Illiteracy rate 36%

Inflation rate 2002 (IMF estimate) 13.4% Share of labour force with tertiaryeducation

27.3%

Investment share of GDP 23% Military spending (% governmentexpenditure)

8.1%

Domestic Bank credit share of GDP 11.3% Mortality rate under 5 (per 1000 livebirths)

153

Source: World Bank (WDI), and IMF (2003)Economic Growth and Growth Models

According to Boopen (2006), Appah (2010), economic growth is the long run process that results from thecompounding of economic events over time. Similarly, Dwivedi (2002) stated that economic growth means asustained increase in per capita national output or net national product over a long period of time. It implies thatthe rate of increase in total output must be greater than the rate of population growth. To measure economicgrowth, economists generally examine the rate of change in real GDP from one year to the next. The CentralBank of Nigeria (2008) stated that GDP is the money value of goods and services produced in an economyduring a period of time irrespective of the nationality of the people who produced the goods and services. It isusually calculated without making any allowance for capital consumption (or deductions for depreciation). Also,GDP by expenditure based is the total final expenditure at purchases prices (including the f.o.b. value of exportsof goods and services) less the f.o.b. value of imports of goods and services. Buhari (1993) clearly states that theGDP or Gross Domestic Product is the total volume of production that has taken place in the economyirrespective of the nationality of the people who produced the goods and services. According to him, it is thetotal production that has taken place in Nigeria by Nigerians themselves and foreigners living in Nigeria by

Nigerians themselves and foreigners living in Nigeria.The emergence of economic growth theories can be traced back to Adams Smiths Wealth of Nations. In Smithsview, economic growth of a nation strictly speaking, wealth of Nations depends on the division of labour and is

limited by the limits of division of labour. The Smithian view was later superceded by the view of Richardo,Malthus and Mill. The growth theories suggested by these great economists are collectively called classicaltheory of economic growth. And then, during the nineteen thirties and forties, R.F. Harrod and Dumar developeda path breaking theory of economic growth-the capital accumulation theory of economic growth, popularlycalled Harrod-Domar growth model. The following theories of economic growth would be discussed:

1. Harrod-Domar Theory of Growth: The Harrod Domar models are based on economic growth on theexperiences of advanced economists. They are primarily addressed to an advanced capitalist economyand attempt to analyse the requirements of steady growth in such an economy. Harrod Domar assign akey role to investment in the process of economic growth. But they lay emphasis on the dual characterof investment. Firstly, it creates income, and secondly, it augments the productive capacity of theeconomy by increasing its capital stock. The former may be regarded as the demand effect and the laterthe supply effect of investment. Hence so long as net investment is taking place, real income and outputwill continue to expand. However, for maintaining a full employment equilibrium level of income from

year to year, it is necessary that both real income and output should expand at the same rate at whichproductive capacity of the capital stock is expanding. Ultimately, it will adversely affect the economyby lowering incomes and employment in the subsequent periods and moving the economy intoequilibrium path of steady growth.

2. The Kaldor Model of Distribution: The Kaldor model is an attempt to make the saving-income ratiovariable in the growth process. It is based on the classical saving function which implies that savingequals the ratio of profits to national income, i.e. S = P/Y.

3. The Pasinetti Model of Profit and Growth: The Pasinetti model is based on the Kaldor model ofdistribution by incorporating workers profits as returns on their savings. It shows that there exists adistribution of income between profits and wages which keeps the system in a long-run equilibrium.

4. Joan Robinsons Model of Capital Accumulation: Mrs Joan Robinson in her book TheAccumulation of capital builds a simple model of economic growth based on the capital rules of thegame. The model is where net national income is the sum of the total wage bill plus total profits which

may be shown as: Y = wN + p K.5. Meades Neo Classical Model of Economic Growth: Professor J.E. Meade has constructed a neo-

classical model of economic growth which is designed to show the way in which the simplest form of


7/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

180

economic system behave during a process of equilibrium growth. In the model, the net output produceddepends upon four factors: (i) the net stock of capital available in the form of machines, (ii) the amountof available labour force; (iii) the availability of land and natural resources; (iv) the state oftechnological knowledge which continues to improve through time.

6. The Solow Model of Long Run Growth: Solow postulates a continues production function linkingoutput to the inputs of capital and labour which are sustainable. He shows in his model that withvariable technical efficient there would be a tendency for capital labour ratio to adjust itself throughtime in the direction of equilibrium ratio.

On the basis of the theoretical and empirical literature, the following research question and hypothesis areproposed:Research Question:How significant is the relationship between public expenditure patterns and the growth of Nigeria?

Hypothesis:There is no significant relationship between public expenditure patterns and the growth of Nigeria.

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

In carrying out this study, time series data sourced from Statistical Bulletin, Economic and Financial Review and

Annual Reports and Statement of Accounts of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) of various issues were madeuse of. The macroeconomic data covers gross domestic product (GDP), and capital expenditure (administration,social and community services, economic services and transfers) and recurrent expenditure (administration,social and community services, economic services and transfers) between 1961 and 2010 in Nigeria. The datagathered were then subjected to various econometric tests using E-views.The Model: The model for this study uses Granger causality test to ascertain the direction of causality betweenGDP and government capital and recurrent expenditure based on sectoral function classification (administration,social and community services, economic services and transfers) between 1961 and 2010. Other econometrictests such as unit root test, co-integration test and vector error correction mechanism were also performed todetermine the stationarity of the data and long run relationship between the variables.The test procedure is illustrated below:

K KNEt = Aj FGEt-1 + nBj NEt-j + Uit (1)

j=I j = I

K KFGEt = Cj FGE t-I + Dj NE t-I + U2t (2)

J = I j = IEquation (1) postulates that NE is related to past values of itself as well as that of FGE and vice-versa forequation (2). Unidirectional causality from FGE to NE is indicated if the estimated coefficient on the laggedFGE in equation (1) is statistically different from zero as a group (i.e., Ai 0) and the set of estimatedcoefficients on the lagged NE in equation (2) is not statistically different from 0 (i.e., Dj = 0). The conserve isthe case for unidirectional causality from NE to FGE.Feedback or bilateral causality exists when the sets of FGE and GDP coefficient are statistically different from 0in both regressions (Gujarati and Porter, 2009).The more general model with instantaneous causality is expressed as:

K KNEt + boFGEt = C;FGEt-1 + DjNEt-1 + ?Uit (3)

J = I J = IK K

FGEt + CoNE = CiFGEt-I + DjNEt-j + U2t (4)J = I J = I

Instantaneous causality occurs and knowledge of NE will improve prediction or goodness of fit of the firstequation for FGE. In this study, a bivariate regression of the form presented below is estimated:

FGEt = 0 + 1FGEt-1 ++1FGEt-1 + B1NEt-1 + --- +B1NEt-1 (5)

NEt = o + 1NEt-1 + ---+1NEt-1 + B1FGEt-1 + ---+B1NEt-1 (6)The equation for the second model is stated thus:

NEt = f (ADMt + SCSt + ECSt + TRFt) (7)GDPt = + ADMt + SCSt + ECSt + TRFt + Ut (8)


8/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

181

To avoid spurious regression outcomes on time series data, unit root test that affirms the stationary of the seriesand co-integration test that affirms at least one co integration equation were conducted. Sequel to the above, theOLS in equation (8) is re-specified to take care of possible short term disequilibrium as follows:NEit = + 1ADMt + 2SCSt + 3ECSt +4 TRFt + 5Ut-1 + t (9)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are expected to be greater > 0Where: NE = Nigerian Economy is proxied by RGDP (real gross domestic product); IF (inflation) ADM =Administration; SCS = Social and Community services; ECS = Economic services; and TRF = transfer.Test for stationarity: To avoid spurious regressions which may arise as a result of carrying out regressions ontime series data without subjecting them for test whether they contain unit root, we first subject the data tostationarity test by using the Augmented Dicker fuller (ADF) tests (Asterious and Hall, 2007).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Empirical Analysis and Result

The data generated from the CBN 2008 Annual Bulletin was analyzed empirically using Financial EconometricsSoftware (E-Views). The trend analysis and the OLS result were shown below:

Fig 1,2 and 3 indicated by trend analysis of growth rates in RGDP, RGPE and RTRF from 1961 through to 2008

that high growth rates was significantly recorded in the Nigerian real GDP between 1971 to 1975 but fallbetween 1976 to 1983 and raised significantly in 1979 through to 1983 while in the other years low raise and fallin growth rates were recorded. In terms of RGPE, growths were steadily recorded with highest rates in 1988 to1992 and 1995 to 1999 respectively. For RTRF between 1963 to 1969 high growths rate was recorded while inthe other years low growth rates were experienced without transfer in 1976.


9/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

182

Table 1 OLSDependent Variable: RGDPMethod: Least SquaresDate: 02/18/12 Time: 13:01

Sample: 1961 2010Included observations: 48

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

RGPE 0.052199 0.157692 0.331017 0.7422RTRF -0.001161 0.006156 -0.188555 0.8513C 18.48384 13.75753 1.343543 0.1858

R-squared 0.003302 Mean dependent var 19.75767Adjusted R-squared -0.040996 S.D. dependent var 85.45772S.E. of regression 87.19182 Akaike info criterion 11.83456Sum squared resid 342108.6 Schwarz criterion 11.95151Log likelihood -281.0294 F-statistic 0.074545Durbin-Watson stat 1.972112 Prob(F-statistic) 0.928281

Source: Eviews 3.0

OLS ModelEstimation Command:=====================LS RGDP RGPE RTRF C

Estimation Equation:=====================RGDP = C(1)*RGPE + C(2)*RTRF + C(3)

Substituted Coefficients:=====================RGDP = 0.0521988355*RGPE - 0.00116067341*RTRF + 18.48383863

Source: Eviews 3.0

The R-squared is found to be 0.7358 implying that the analysis was adjudged accurate at 73.6% and thedependent variable(RGDP) is explained by the independent variables(ADM,SCS,ECS and TRF) at the same

percentage level while the unexplained value at 26.4% captured by error.The model estimation is:

+++= RTRFRGPERGDP 210

RTRFRGPERGDP 00116.005219.04838.18 += Se = (1.3435) (0.3310) (-0.188)t = (0.1888) (0.7422) (0.8513)R2=0.003 AdjR2= -0.004 F-Stat= 0.07 Prob= 0.928 Dw-test =1.97

The model established that there is very weak and low relationship among the growth in the real (RGDP), RGPEand RTRF. The independent variables (RGPE and RTRF) can only explain the dependent variable (RGDP) by -

4%. This implied that RGPE and RTRF explained the changes in the growth rate of RGDP by -4%. A unitchange in RGPE generated a correspondent increase in the RGDP and a unit change in RTRF has decreasingeffect on the growth of the Nigerian GDP by 5.2% and 0.1% respectively.Based on the model parameters, the RGPE and RTRF are not statistically significant at 5% level. TheGraph showed the behaviour of the fitted graph.


10/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

183

Source: Eviews 3.0

Table 2aSerial Correlation TestBreusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test:

F-statistic 0.058926 Probability 0.942853Obs*R-squared 0.131196 Probability 0.936507

Source: Eviews 3.0

Table 2bWhite Heteroskedasticity TestWhite Heteroskedasticity Test:

F-statistic 0.079164 Probability 0.988299Obs*R-squared 0.350892 Probability 0.986296

Source: Eviews 3.0

Table 2c:Stability TestRamsey RESET Test:

F-statistic 0.941583 Probability 0.429150Log likelihood ratio 3.124358 Probability 0.372846

Source: Eviews 3.0

The null hypothesis is rejected in the table 2a, b and c because the p-values are greater than the critical values(0.942893 ,0.988200, & 0.429150>0.05). We concluded that the series are not serially correlated,homoskedasticity and that the model is stable and in functional form.To test for stationarity of series for the purpose of co-integration as suggested by the research paper, we test theindividual variable using ADF unit root test and Johansen procedure for normalization and co-integratingequations see table 3 below: The table3a test for stationary at level I(o) with 5% critical value.Table 3. Unit root Test ADF result

S/N Variable ADF Test At Level Prob* Decision

1. RGDP -6.597237 -2.925169 0.0000 Stationary

2. RGPE -8.033635 -2.925169 0.0000 Stationary

3. RTRF -6.364524 -2.925169 0.0000 Stationary

*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.

Source: Eviews 3.0

-200

0

200

400

600

-200

0

200

400

600

65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05

Residual Actual Fitted


11/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

184

Table 4: Co integration Analysis ResultDate: 02/18/12 Time: 13:15Sample(adjusted): 1961 2010Included observations: 47 after adjusting endpoints

Trend assumption: Linear deterministic trendSeries: RGDP RGPE RTRFLags interval (in first differences):

Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test

Hypothesized Trace 5 Percent 1 PercentNo. of CE(s) Eigenvalue Statistic Critical Value Critical Value

None ** 0.609093 105.1508 29.68 35.65At most 1 ** 0.498784 61.00439 15.41 20.04At most 2 0.455152 2.54065 3.76 6.65

*(**) denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 5%(1%) levelTrace test indicates 2 cointegrating equation(s) at both 5% and 1% levels

Source: Eviews 3.0

Using the Johanson co integration procedure, the variables RGDP, RGPE and RTRF were co integrated at 5%level at most 1 co integrating equation with at least 2 co integrating equations. Since the variables werestationary at level. VEC model is adopted which indicated that there is a long run relationship with RGPE beingstatistical significant at 5% level both in the current and the previous years as the t-statistic is greater than 2.0 bythe rule of thumb while the RTRF and RGDP werenot statistical significant. See VEC estimate analysis below:

Table5: VEC Estimation ResultVector Error Correction EstimatesDate: 02/18/12 Time: 13:19Sample(adjusted): 1961 2010Included observations: 45 after adjusting

EndpointsStandard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]

Cointegrating Eq: CointEq1

RGDP(-1) 1.000000

RGPE(-1) 1.586581(0.40583)

[ 3.90951]

C -79.83871

Error Correction: D(RGDP) D(RGPE)

CointEq1 -0.586528 -0.640802(0.21030) (0.19017)

[-2.78895] [-3.36970]

D(RGDP(-1)) -0.253724 0.482853(0.19395) (0.17538)

[-1.30817] [ 2.75316]

D(RGDP(-2)) -0.120351 0.229027(0.15919) (0.14395)

[-0.75600] [ 1.59102]

D(RGPE(-1)) 0.656041 -0.098169(0.26931) (0.24353)

[ 2.43597] [-0.40311]

D(RGPE(-2)) 0.283578 -0.069194(0.18474) (0.16705)


12/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

185

[ 1.53499] [-0.41421]

C -2.118675 -1.547150(15.3849) (13.9117)

[-0.13771] [-0.11121]

RTRF -0.002500 -0.002755(0.00729) (0.00659)

[-0.34293] [-0.41790]

R-squared 0.418470 0.550308Adj. R-squared 0.326649 0.479304Sum sq. resids 392325.4 320787.2S.E. equation 101.6088 91.87909F-statistic 4.557473 7.750378Log likelihood -267.9989 -263.4693Akaike AIC 12.22217 12.02086Schwarz SC 12.50321 12.30190Mean dependent -2.318170 -2.704116S.D. dependent 123.8257 127.3282

Determinant Residual Covariance 85650741Log Likelihood -531.0763Log Likelihood (d.f. adjusted) -538.6847Akaike Information Criteria 24.65265Schwarz Criteria 25.29502

Source: Eviews 3.0

CONCLUSION AND RECOMEMNDATIONSThe purpose of this study is to investigate thecointegration of public sector expenditure patterns and growth in

Nigeria. To capture this, time series macroeconomic data were culled from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)

statistical Bulletin 1961-2010. The econometric analysis reveals that a long run relationship exists betweeneconomic growth and the patterns of public expenditure in Nigeria. The Johansen Co-integration test affirmedthat a long run relationship exists between the explanatory and explained variable. The vector error correctionanalysis result also confirms the relationship between public sector expenditure and economic growth. Thisresult is consistent with Irmen and Kuehnel, (2008; Nuruden and Usman, (2010) that government expenditureaffects growth of countries.. According to Maku (2009), the general view is that public expenditure eitherrecurrent or capital on social or economic infrastructure can be growth-enhancing although the financing of suchexpenditure to provide essential infrastructural facilities-including transport, electricity, telecommunications,water and sanitation, waste disposal, education and health can be growth-retarding. Also Afonso and Furceri(2007), Minea (2008) suggest that public spending on infrastructural facilities is widely seen as having animportant role in affecting economic growth. Therefore, the following recommendations were provided toimprove the public sector expenditure patterns in Nigeria:

1. The government in Nigeria should restructure the financial management system in the public sector for

transparency in government business to meet the demands of the 21st century.2. The level of corruption in the management of government revenue should be minimized to achieve the

goals and objectives of public sector and the citizens of Nigeria.3. The level of tax evasion in Nigeria should be reduced through an efficient and effective tax

administration.4. The economy of Nigeria should be restructured to reduce the level of dependence on oil revenue.5. There should be accountability and transparency from government officials on the management of

revenue and also citizens should be able to benefit from expenditures of government.6. The Nigerian government should ensure that the patterns of government expenditure should be tailored

towards more of capital expenditure than current for the provision of more infrastructural facilities inthe country.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, H. A. (2000). The Relationship between Government Expenditure and Economic Growth in SaudiArabia. Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 12(2): 173 191.


13/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

186

Afonso, A. and Furceri, D. (2007). Government Size, Composition, Volatility and Economic Growth.Department of Economics, School of Economics and Management, Technical University of Lisbon. Working

paper WP04/2008/DE/UECE.Akpan, N.I. (2005). Government Expenditure and Economic Growth in Nigeria: A Disaggregated Approach.

Central Bank of Nigeria Economic and Financial Review, Vol. 43(1):Al-Yousif, Y. (2000). Does Government Expenditure Inhibit or Promote Economic Growth: Some EmpiricalEvidence from Saudi Arabia.Indian Economic Journal, Vol. 48(2).Ando, S. (2009). The Impact of Defense Expenditure on Economic Growth: Panel Data Analysis Based on theFeder Model. The International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Vol. 4: 141 154.Anyanwu, J.C. (1997). Nigerian Public Finance. Onitsha: Joanee Educational Publishers Ltd.Appah, E. (2010). The Relationship Between Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth in Nigeria: 1991-2005.

International Journal of Economic Development Research and Investment, Vol. 1(2 & 3): 37-46.Aregbeyen, O. (2006). Cointegration Causality and Wagners Law: A Test for Nigeria. Central Bank of

Nigeria Economic and Financial Review, Vol. 44(2): 1-17.Arpaia, A. and Turrini, A. (2008). Government Expenditure and Economic Growth in the EU: Long-Runtendencies and Short-Term Adjustment, European Commission.Asiedu, E. (2005). Foreign Direct Investment in Africa; The Role of Natural Resources, Market Size,

Government, Policy, Institutions and Political Instability, World Institute for Development Economic Research.Asteriou, D. and Hall, S. (2007), Applied Econometrics: A Modern Approach, London: Palgrave-Macmillan.BBC(2006) Nigerian Leaders Stole $389 Billion London october, 2006.Bagdigen, M. and Cetintas, H. (2004). Causality between Public Expenditure and Economic Growth: TheTurkish Case.Journal of Economic and Social Research, Vol. 6(1): 53 72.Barro, R. (1991). Economic Growth in Cross Section of Countries, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.106(2): 407 433.Bawa, S. and Mohammed, J. A. (2007) Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth in Nigeria,Central Bank of Nigeria Economic Review, 45 (3), September 2007.Bhartia, H.L. (2004). Public Finance. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.Boopen, S. (2006). Transport Infrastructure and Economic Growth: Evidence from Africa Using PanelEstimates. The Empirical Economics Letters, Vol. 5(1): 37 52.Bose, N., Haqur, M. E. and Osborn, D. R. (2007). Public Expenditure and Economic Growth: A Disaggregated

Analysis for Developing Countries. The Manchester School, Vol. 75(5): 533-556.Buhari, A.L. (1993)ICAN/POLYTECHNIC Public Finance. Ilorin: University of Ilorin Press.Canning, D. and Pedroni, P. (2004). The Effect of Infrastructure on Long Run Economic Growth. Retrieved on13/8/2010 from www.williams.edu/Economics/wp/pedroniinfrastructure.pdfCollier, A. Elliot, L. Hegre, H. et al (2003) Breaking the Conflict Trap, Civil War and Development Policy,World Bank and Oxford University Press.Colombier, C. (2009). Does the Composition of Public Expenditure Impact Economic Growth? Evidence fromSwitzerland Using a Robust Cointegration Approach. Retrieved on 21/8/202 fromwww.boeckler.de/pdf/v_2009_10_colombier.pdfCookey, A.E. (2010). Does Government Expenditure Yield Greater Dividends in Democracies? AComparative Analysis of Military and Civilian Regimes in Nigeria, International Journal of Business andBehavioural Sciences Research, 1(1): 15-33.Coorey, A. (2009). Government Expenditure, Governance and Economic Growth. Comparative Economic

Studies, Vol. 51(3): 401-418. Retrieved on 13/8/2010 fromhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/ces;jsessionid=q1g8igkzfvms.aliceDwivedi, D.N. (2002).Managerial Economics (6th ed.), New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House PVT Ltd.Eromosele, V. (1997)Nigerian Petroleum Business: A Hand Book On Petroleum Industry, Oil and Gas In

Nigeria, Lagos, Advent Communications Limited, 1st ed.Ezerim, C.B., Muoghalu, M.I., Elike, U. and Amuzie, A.E. (2010). Public Expenditure Growth, Inflation andCointegration: Evidence from Nigeria, International Journal of Business and Behavioural Sciences Research,1(1): 1-14.Fan, S. and Rao, N. (2003). Public Spending in Developing Countries: Trends, Determination, and Impact.

EPDT International Food Policy Research Institute, Discussion paper. No. 99.Folster, S. and Henrekon, M. (2001). Growth Effects of Government Expenditure and Taxation in RichCountries. European Economic Review, Vol. 45(8): 1501-1520. Retrieved on 13/8/2010 fromhttp://ssrm.com/abstract=9982621.

Gujarati, D.N. and Porter, D.C. (2009), Basic Econometrics, New York: McGraw-Hill/IrwinGupta, S., Verhoeven, M. and Tiongson, E. (2002). The Effectiveness of Government Spending on Education


14/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

187

and Health Care in Developing and Transition Economies. European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 18:717-737.Gupta, S., Clements, B., Baldacci, E. and Mulas-Granados, C. (2005). Fiscal Policy, Expenditure Composition,and Growth in Low-Income Countries. Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 24: 441 463.

Retrieved on 18/8/2020 from www.ucm.es/.../publication%20recientes/expenditure%20composition.pdfHaque, M. and Kim, D. (2003). Public Investment in Transport and Communication and Growth: A DynamicPanel Approach. Centre for Growth and Business Cycle Research, University of Manchester. Discussion

Papers Series No. 031. Retrieved on 21/8/2010 from http://www.ses.man.ac.uk/cgber/discussion.htm.Ibaba, I.S. (2005). Understanding the Niger Delta Crisis. Rev. ed. Port Harcourt: Amethyst & ColleaguesPublishers.Irmen, A. and Kuehnel, J. (2008). Productive Government Expenditure and Economic Growth. Department ofEconomics, University of Heidelberg. Discussion Paper Series No. 464. Retrieved on 18/8/2010 fromwww.awi.uni-heidelberg.de/with2/Discussion%20papers/papers/dp464.pdfJhingan, M. L. (2004). Macro-Economic Theory (11 ed). New Delhi: Vrinda Publications Ltd.John, S.M., Appah, E. and Buseni, J. (2011). The Composition of Public Expenditure and Economic Growth in

Nigeria, International Journal of Accounting, 3(1): 50-57.Kweka, J.P. and Morrissey, O. (2000). Government Spending and Economic Growth in Tanzania, 1965 1996.

Centre for Research in Economic Development and International Trade, University of Nottingham. Retrieved on13/8/2010 from www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/credit/research/..../cp.00.6.pdfLeeuwen, B. V. and Foldvari, P. (2007). Human Capital and Economic Growth in Asia 1890-2000: A TimeSeries Analysis. Retrieved on 21/8/2010 fromwww.basvanleeuwen.net/bestanden/human_capital_growth_asia.pdfMaku, O.E. (2009). Does Government Spending Spur Economic Growth in Nigeria? Munich Personal RePEcArchive. Retrieved on 13/8/2010 from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17941/MPRA Paper no. 17941.Minea, A. (2008). The Role of Public Spending in the Economic Growth Evolution. Romanian Journal of

Economic Forecasting, Vol. 2: 99 120.Musgrave, R. A. and Msgrave, P.A. (2006). Public Finance in Theory and Practice (5th ed.). New Delhi: TataMcGraw-Hill.

Nurudeen, A. and Usman, A. (2010). Government Expenditure and Economic Growth in Nigeria, 1970 2008:A Disaggregated Analysis. Business and Economic Journal, Vol. 4. Retrieved on 13/8/2010 from

http://astonjournals.com/bejNwachukwu, O (2011) N450bn Un-remitted Oil Proceeds: FAAC Demand Repayment Schedule from NNPC,Lagos , Businessday Media Ltd, January 17, 2011.

Nwezeaku, N. C. (2010) The Impact of Public Sector Financial Management on the Economies of Sub-SaharanAfrica, London, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Euro Journals Publishing Inc.2010, http;//www.eurojournals.com/finance.htm,Email:[email protected]

Odularu,G. O (2008) Crude Oil and Nigeria Economy, Nigeria, http://www.ogbus.ru/eng/Ogbonna, G.N. (2011). Impact of Petroleum income on the Nigerian Economy, Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation Department of Accounting, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.Rajkumar, A. and Swaroop, V. (2002). Public Spending and Outcomes: Does Governance Matter?. WorldBank Working Papers, 2840 May.Ramirez, M. and Nazmi, N. (2003). Public Investment and Economic Growth in Latin America: An EmpiricalTest.Review of Development Economics, Vol. 7(1): 115 126.

Ranjan, K.D. and Sharma, C. (2008). Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: Evidence from India.The ICFA/University Journal of Public Finance, Vol. 6(3): 60-69. http://ssrm.com/abstract=1216242.Sabatini, F. (2006), SocialCapital, Public Spending and the Quality of Economic Developments, Social ScienceResearch Network.Shioji, E. (2001). Public Capital and Economic Growth: A Convergence Approach. Journal of EconomicGrowth, Vol. 6: 205-227.Thomas A. N. and Perepreghabofa, J. D (2008) Development Crisis in the Niger Delta: The Resource ControlOption, Port Harcourt, Harey Publications Company.Todaro, M.P and Smith, S.C. (2006), Economic Development Pearson Education Ltd. Edinburgh Gate Harlow,Essex, UK.Vaish, M.C. (2002). Macro-Economic Theory (12 ed).New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.Yakub, M. U. (2008) The Impact of oil on Nigerias Economy: The Boom and Bust Cycle Abuja, CentralBank of Nigeria.

Yasin, M. (2008). Public Spending and Economic Growth: Empirical Investigation of Sub-Saharan Africa.Southwestern Economic Review: 59-68. Retrieved on 21/8/2010 from


15/16



Vol.3, No.9, 2013

188

www.ser.tcu.edu/2003/SER2003%20Yasin%2059.68.pdfYuk, W. (2005). Government Size and Economic Growth: Time Series Evidence for the United Kingdom, 1830to 1993. Econometrics Working Paper EWP0501, University of Victoria. Retrieved on 21/8/2010 fromhttp://web.uvic.ca/econ/research/papers/ewp0501.pdf


16/16

This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science,

Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access

Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is

Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTEs homepage:http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS

The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and

collaborating with academic institutions around the world. Theres no deadline for

submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission

instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ The IISTE

editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified submissions in a

fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the

world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from

gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the journals is also available

upon request of readers and authors.

MORE RESOURCES

Book publication information:http://www.iiste.org/book/

Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open

Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische

Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial

Library , NewJour, Google Scholar
http://www.iiste.org/http://www.iiste.org/http://www.iiste.org/journals/http://www.iiste.org/journals/http://www.iiste.org/book/http://www.iiste.org/book/http://www.iiste.org/book/http://www.iiste.org/conference/http://www.iiste.org/conference/http://www.iiste.org/conference/http://www.iiste.org/book/http://www.iiste.org/journals/http://www.iiste.org/

Cointegration of Public Sector Expenditure Patterns and Growth of Nigeria.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Cointegration of Public Sector Expenditure Patterns and Growth of Nigeria.pdf